Victoria Panfilova, observer of Nezavisimaya Gazeta. Exclusively to Vestnik Kavkaza
Russia’s actions toward Ukraine were supported by Armenia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. There is no surprise in the trinity. These are the most consistent allies of Russia in the post-Soviet space, which see their future in close integration contacts with Russia. At the same time, by recognizing the legitimacy of the referendum in Crimea and its merger into Russia, each of three countries followed its own interests in Ukraine.
For Astana, it is an opportunity to demonstrate to Moscow that it understands who plays the leading role in the post-Soviet space, use the situation for further rapprochement, counting on generous support from Moscow in realizing its initiative, including in Central Asia, where Kazakhstan doesn’t hide ambitions of regional leadership.
For Minsk, the events in Kiev look frightening. It needs Russian support. When there is serious coolness between Moscow and Minsk, it will be the end of Alexander Lukashenko. He understands this clearly and made definite statements many times.
For Yerevan, recognition of the Crimean referendum became not only another confirmation that Armenia has no opportunities for political manoeuvring, being chained by the Karabakh conflict. In the matter of independence of the former Georgian autonomies – Abkhazia and South Ossetia – Armenia maintained a neutral position, remembering about its blockade position and its only contact with the rest of the world through Georgia. As for Crimea, there was no such a brake. Moreover, the support of its powerful partner could positively influence the settlement of the Karabakh problem in favor of the Armenian side. Yerevan doesn’t say anything about it, but of course it hopes for this. Nagorno-Karabakh doesn’t hide its optimism about the merger of Crimea.
The head of the club of political scientists “South Caucasus” (Baku), Ilgar Velizde, thinks that these hopes are absolutely groundless. “The Crimean events won’t influence the process over Nagorno-Karabakh directly. They are determined by different factors. The Crimean process has its own history and policy, the Karabakh settlement – its own,” Velizade told Vestnik Kavkaza. And it doesn’t contradict the Armenian side. “If we draw parallels, the situation resembles the conflict between Georgia and Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008,” Velizde continues. Nothing changed in the Karabakh settlement in 2008, and now the Crimean events won’t influence the process either.
His point of view is confirmed by the fact that soon the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia will meet. The Azerbaijani side would simply reject it, if any signs of changing the situation over Nagorno-Karabakh to the detriment of Azerbaijani interests appeared. “The meeting between the presidents hasn’t been cancelled. We cannot say that a breakthrough would happen there. There are no signs of such a possibility. The Karabakh process is characterized by long stagnation. Many things will become clear at the talks between Aliyev and Argsyan,” Velizade predicts.
However, an important event happened in the context of the Crimean events. The USA criticized Armenia heavily for recognizing the results of the referendum. John Heffern stated at the international conference in Yerevan “NATO Partnership in the South Caucasus” that he is sorry about the Armenian choice in the Ukrainian crisis. Whether the ambassador’s criticism means that Armenia will be deprived of Western support in the Karabakh settlement or not, we will find out in the near future. In any case, Yerevan shouldn’t count on complete support from Moscow in the matter. Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev defined the position of Russia on Karabakh clearly: only talks, only a mutually-beneficial compromise.
